From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 16 01:31:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 16 Sep 2002 08:31:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 4863 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 08:31:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Sep 2002 08:31:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2002 08:31:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.187.e2907ac (18707) for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 04:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <187.e2907ac.2ab6f0f8@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 04:31:52 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_187.e2907ac.2ab6f0f8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_187.e2907ac.2ab6f0f8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/15/2002 2:42:05 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > la pycyn cusku di'e >=20 > >I have some idea what your boa is like, but I can't paint a reliable=20 > >picture > >of it yet because too many things I need to know to do a picture I don't= =20 > >know > >from knowing only that it is a boa. >=20 > Then you can't make lo pixra be le mi sincrboa, but you won't > have any trouble making lo pixra be lo'e sincrboa. There are > of course many possible pixra be lo'e sincrboa, and they don't > have to all look alike. > >> Sorry, I thought you meant an accurate picture of a generic boa, because,=20 once you get away from that, it gets hard to keep up the claim that it is a= =20 pictue of a generic boa rather than something else that it is an accurate=20 picture of. But if any old boa picture will do and we call it a picture of= a=20 generic boa, then, sure, you can picture it. Since (sniggle) the picture i= s=20 is not accurate, would a picture of a viper do as well -- or almost. (I hop= e=20 the answer is "No" but I will be interested to hear the reason. And if the= =20 answer is "Yes" then I throw in the towel, ther is just no talking to some= =20 people so far from the rules of language). << >Having a delusion is coverd by the usually safe {mi viska li'i sincrboa} I suppose you mean {se li'i}, "I'm a visual experiencer of something being a boa". >> No, I meant {li'i} though I left out the {le} . Apparently the meaning has= =20 changed since the word was created by someone who lived primarily in a=20 disembodied experiental mode. << >(this also covers the {lo} case but does not entail it). Why is {lo'e} a >no-no? It is certainly not a no-no! {lo'e} is probably a yes-yes anywhere {lo} is, though neither entails the other. >>=20 My remark was to your claim that {viska lo'e sincrboa} made no sense, or=20 something along that line and was intended to indicate that, were that true= ,=20 {pixra loe' sincrboa} made no sense and for essentially the same reasons. When looking up "boa," by the way, I did see a picture of one in the=20 dictionary, presumably meant to be typical, since it had no further specifi= c=20 identification. I was just a black-and-white sketch, so avoided the issue = of=20 color (I don't suppose anyone will thaink that the generic boa is white,=20 though boas are in an albino sequence, I think). << >If I can paint it, I can see it surely. Not always, but in the case of boas yes, certainly. >> So {viska lo'e boa} does make sense. Different from {viska lo boa}? (For= =20 either answer, what is special here, since generally they are different and= =20 generally generics are too abstract to be seen). << > Either {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le >frike} means "if anything were a lion, it would live in Africa," which is >obviously false, And not what I mean. >> So you do keep saying. But aside from your say-so (which is not a negligib= le=20 bit of evidence, you being right most of the time about things) you have ye= t=20 to give an explanation of why not, in spite of repeated opportunities and=20 urgings. << >or it means (I have to unpack some more) "In some world >there is something which is a lion and lives in Africa," which is -- in th= e >case of lions, but not of unicorns -- of little practical value over {lo >cinfo cu xabju le frike}. This is not what I mean either. I don't make any claim about lions in particular, neither in this nor in possible worlds. It's a claim about Africa in particular and lions in general. >> Notice that neither of the alternatives offered makes any claims about lion= s=20 in paticular -- even that some exist. So, what is wrong with them? Would = it=20 help to replace "is a lion" with "has all the essential properties of a=20 lion"? How do you know that talk about generic lions doesn't involve=20 particular lions, at least hypothetical particular lions, unless you know=20 fairly completely what talk about genric lions does involve? In which case= ,=20 why are you hiding this information in your bosom? It seems self-defeating= =20 as well as cruel to do this. << >The problem with {pixra} is that boahood pervades too few viusal >properties to allow a picture to be made, if it is at all representational >(and if it is not, anything goes and I have to take your word for what it >represents and by what coding, so almost any visual image will do and the >whole becomes really uninteresting). So you probably would not agree that Saint-Exup=E9ry's picture is lo pixra be lo'e sincrboa poi ba'o tunlo lo xanto. You don't have to take _my_ word, you have to take the word of the speakers of the language in question: English in the case of "boa" and Lojban in the case of {sincrboa}, though for these words there shouldn't be much deviation from language to language, probably more variation within English itself. >> I don't have Exy's stuff to hand, so I don't know what picture you are=20 talking about. But, since we are now -- in spite of all manner of hazards = --=20 allowing inaccurate pictures to count, I don't see any reason to deny it --= =20 unless it is too far off (to a viper, say, or a newt) I would certainly=20 (with the same conditions) be willing to say that it is a picture of a boa= =20 (if it is, that is) and allow it to do business as a generic (rather than a= =20 typical) boa (though I would probably like the caveats spelled out -- "mind= =20 the color and the size and the exact marking pattern and...") << ><< >I never said {le nu lo sfofa cu co'e} deals with particular sofas. >I did say it deals with particular events. > >> >OK -- and how can there be a particular event involving sofas that does no= t >invlve a particular sofa? For example: {le nu mi nitcu lo'e sfofa cu purci} "My needing a sofa is in the past". >> Which (though ill-formed) involves a particular sofa, of course, though not= =20 one in this world, assuming it makes any sense at all. When did you ever=20 need a generic sofa? You needed a sofa and did not care about the=20 particulars, perhaps, but that is a very different thing. What would you d= o=20 with a generic sofa -- you can't sit on it or use if for decor (it has no=20 color nor pattern nor cushion density). In short, this seems no different= =20 from {le nu mi nitcu tu'a lo sfofa cu purci} is it is sensible at all. You= =20 are, apparently, going to say that it is not right because it involved {lo= =20 sfofa} byt notice that it does not say anything about an particular sofa(s)= =20 -- even that there are some (well, it says there are some in another world= =20 but it is hard to deal with essential properties wihtout other worlds, so=20 that can't be the problem either.) We can do away with {lo sfofa} and talk= =20 about things with all the essential properties of sofas, satisfying the sen= se=20 of {sfofa} -- but those are just sofas.=20 << le nu mi nitcu lo'e sfofa is a particular event involving sofas that does not involve a particular sofa. >> So is le nu mi nitcu tu'a lo sfofa, unless you mean by "involve a particula= r=20 sofa" "contains the words {lo sfofa}" (which, note, even as it stands, is n= ot=20 about a particular sofa -- that is {le sfofa}). But the words occur in an=20 opaque, intensional, whatever context which prescisely cuts them off from a= ny=20 reference to any particulars -- as witness the lack of quantifier binding. = =20=20 "But they are particular in some other world" (two moves removed from this= =20 one). Maybe, but the other world is such an abstraction that it is hard to= =20 see what they are particular in that world" would mean.=20 << I don't see any problem with liking an event. I think {mi nelci le nu da sfofa} is a perfectly legitimate thing to say. I just don't agree that {mi nelci lo'e sfofa} is equivalent to {mi nelci lo nu lo sfofa cu co'e}. They are both meaningful, but different. >> As always, in what way? I don't see it. But then, I don't know what {mi=20 nelci lo'e sfofa} means. The situations the two describe seem to me to be= =20 exactly the same. At least, I would normally say {mi nelci tu'a lo sfofa}= =20 for the situation you describe as being what {mi nelci lo'e sfofa} describe= s,=20 unless you have failed to mention (or cleverly hidden) some detail that mak= es=20 the difference. But I can't figure out what detail it would be that involv= ed=20 -- moe than it already is -- the sense of {sfofa}. << I don't feel discomfort with {nelci le nu lo sfofa cu co'e}. I don't think {nelci tu'a lo sfofa} is wrong. I prefer {nelci lo'e sfofa} for "liking sofas". {tu'a sfofa} is much more ambiguous than {lo'e sfofa}. In some context {tu'a lo sfofa} could mean "doing it on the sofa" for example, something which {lo'e sfofa} cannot mean. >> Why the preference? What does it say that the othere doesn't? The ambiguit= y=20 of {tu'a lo sfofa} is the ambiguity of {co'e}, but at least whe know what t= he=20 range is there. But we -- I certainly and you i\by implication from the fa= ct=20 that you won't tell -- hae no idea what {lo'e sfofa} means . Why does it=20 exclude doing it on the sofa -- we are never told, even by implication, wha= t=20 you like lo'e sfofa FOR and yet things aren't like in isolation, but for=20 something, even if it is only a rosey glow. << >Using {tu'a} does not literally change the level of abstraction, since >everything is on the same level in Lojban. I think {fasnu} and {dacti} are not synonymous. To that extent at least nu-things are not at the same level as sofa-things. >> {mlatu} and {gerku} aren't synonymous either -- which is on the higher leve= l=20 of abstaction? << >And your case is ultimately >talking about the properties of a sofa, not about sofas I guess we will never agree about that. >>=20 OK, your case is talking about sofas. So why the big insistence that it is= =20 so different from other ways of talking about sofas. I think it is, mind=20 you, but this suggests that you don't. --part1_187.e2907ac.2ab6f0f8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/15/2002 2:42:0= 5 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
la pycyn cusku di'e

>I have some idea what your boa is like, but I can't paint a reliable >picture
>of it yet because too many things I need to know to do a picture I don'= t
>know
>from knowing only that it is a boa.

Then you can't make lo pixra be le mi sincrboa, but you won't
have any trouble making lo pixra be lo'e sincrboa. There are
of course many possible pixra be lo'e sincrboa, and they don't
have to all look alike.
>>

Sorry, I thought you meant an accurate picture of a generic boa, because, o= nce you get away from that, it gets hard to keep up the claim that it is a = pictue of a generic boa rather than something else that it is an accurate p= icture of.  But if any old boa picture will do and we call it a pictur= e of a generic boa, then, sure, you can picture it.  Since (sniggle) t= he picture is is not accurate, would a picture of a viper do as well -- or = almost. (I hope the answer is "No" but I will be interested to hear the rea= son.  And if the answer is "Yes" then I throw in the towel, ther is ju= st no talking to some people so far from the rules of language).

<<
>Having a delusion is coverd by the usually safe {mi viska li'i sincrboa= }

I suppose you mean {se li'i}, "I'm a visual experiencer of
something being a boa".
>>
No, I meant {li'i} though I left out the {le} .  Apparently the meanin= g has changed since the word was created by someone who lived primarily in = a disembodied experiental mode.

<<
>(this also covers the {lo} case but does not entail it).  Why is {= lo'e} a
>no-no?

It is certainly not a no-no! {lo'e} is probably a yes-yes
anywhere {lo} is, though neither entails the other.
>>
My remark was to your claim that {viska lo'e sincrboa} made no sense, or so= mething along that line and was intended to indicate that, were that true, = {pixra loe' sincrboa} made no sense and for essentially the same reasons. When looking up "boa," by the way, I did see a picture of one in the dictio= nary, presumably meant to be typical, since it had no further specific iden= tification.  I was just a black-and-white sketch, so avoided the issue= of color (I don't suppose anyone will thaink that the generic boa is white= , though boas are in an albino sequence, I think).

<<
>If I can paint it, I can see it surely.

Not always, but in the case of boas yes, certainly.
>>
So {viska lo'e boa} does make sense.  Different from {viska lo boa}?&n= bsp; (For either answer, what is special here, since generally they are dif= ferent and generally generics are too abstract to be seen).

<<
>  Either {lo'e cinfo cu xabju le
>frike} means "if anything were a lion, it would live in Africa," which = is
>obviously false,

And not what I mean.
>>
So you do keep saying.  But aside from your say-so (which is not a neg= ligible bit of evidence, you being right most of the time about things) you= have yet to give an explanation of why not, in spite of repeated opportuni= ties and urgings.

<<
>or it means (I have to unpack some more) "In some world
>there is something which is a lion and lives in Africa," which is -- in= the
>case of lions, but not of unicorns -- of little practical value over {l= o
>cinfo cu xabju le frike}.

This is not what I mean either. I don't make any claim about lions
in particular, neither in this nor in possible worlds. It's a claim
about Africa in particular and lions in general.
>>
Notice that neither of the alternatives offered makes any claims about lion= s in paticular -- even that some exist.  So, what is wrong with them?&= nbsp; Would it help to replace "is a lion" with "has all the essential prop= erties of a lion"?  How do you know that talk about generic lions does= n't involve particular lions, at least hypothetical particular lions, unles= s you know fairly completely what talk about genric lions does involve?&nbs= p; In which case, why are you hiding this information in your bosom?  = It seems self-defeating as well as cruel to do this.

<<
>The problem with {pixra} is that boahood pervades too few viusal
>properties to allow a picture to be made, if it is at all representatio= nal
>(and if it is not, anything goes and I have to take your word for what = it
>represents and by what coding, so almost any visual image will do and t= he
>whole becomes really uninteresting).

So you probably would not agree that Saint-Exup=E9ry's picture is
lo pixra be lo'e sincrboa poi ba'o tunlo lo xanto. You don't
have to take _my_ word, you have to take the word of the speakers
of the language in question: English in the case of "boa" and
Lojban in the case of {sincrboa}, though for these words there
shouldn't be much deviation from language to language, probably
more variation within English itself.
>>
I don't have Exy's stuff to hand, so I don't know what picture you are talk= ing about.  But, since we are now -- in spite of all manner of hazards= -- allowing inaccurate pictures to count, I don't see any reason to deny i= t -- unless it is too far off (to a viper, say, or a newt)  I would ce= rtainly (with the same conditions) be willing to say that it is a picture o= f a boa (if it is, that is) and allow it to do business as a generic (rathe= r than a typical) boa (though I would probably like the caveats spelled out= -- "mind the color and the size and the exact marking pattern and...")

<<
><<
>I never said {le nu lo sfofa cu co'e} deals with particular sofas.
>I did say it deals with particular events.
> >>
>OK -- and how can there be a particular event involving sofas that does= not
>invlve a particular sofa?

For example: {le nu mi nitcu lo'e sfofa cu purci}
"My needing a sofa is in the past".
>>
Which (though ill-formed) involves a particular sofa, of course, though not= one in this world, assuming it makes any sense at all.  When did you = ever need a generic sofa? You needed a sofa and did not care about the part= iculars, perhaps, but that is a very different thing.  What would you = do with a generic sofa -- you can't sit on it or use if for decor (it has n= o color nor pattern nor cushion density).  In short, this seems no dif= ferent from {le nu mi nitcu tu'a lo sfofa cu purci} is it is sensible at al= l. You are, apparently, going to say that it is not right because it involv= ed {lo sfofa} byt notice that it does not say anything about an particular = sofa(s) -- even that there are some (well, it says there are some in anothe= r world but it is hard to deal with essential properties wihtout other worl= ds, so that can't be the problem either.)  We can do away with {lo sfo= fa} and talk about things with all the essential properties of sofas, satis= fying the sense of {sfofa} -- but those are just sofas.

<<
le nu mi nitcu lo'e sfofa is a particular event involving sofas
that does not involve a particular sofa.
>>
So is le nu mi nitcu tu'a lo sfofa, unless you mean by "involve a particula= r sofa" "contains the words {lo sfofa}" (which, note, even as it stands, is= not about a particular sofa -- that is {le sfofa}). But the words occur in= an opaque, intensional, whatever context which prescisely cuts them off fr= om any reference to any particulars -- as witness the lack of quantifier bi= nding.   "But they are particular in some other world" (two moves= removed from this one).  Maybe, but the other world is such an abstra= ction that it is hard to see what they are particular in that world" would = mean.

<<
I don't see any problem with liking an event. I think
{mi nelci le nu da sfofa} is a perfectly legitimate thing
to say. I just don't agree that {mi nelci lo'e sfofa}
is equivalent to {mi nelci lo nu lo sfofa cu co'e}. They
are both meaningful, but different.
>>
As always, in what way?  I don't see it. But then, I don't know what {= mi nelci lo'e sfofa} means.  The situations the two describe seem to m= e to be exactly the same.  At least, I would normally say {mi nelci tu= 'a lo sfofa} for the situation you describe as being what {mi nelci lo'e sf= ofa} describes, unless you have failed to mention (or cleverly hidden) some= detail that makes the difference.  But I can't figure out what detail= it would be that involved -- moe than it already is -- the sense of {sfofa= }.

<<
I don't feel discomfort with {nelci le nu lo sfofa cu co'e}.
I don't think {nelci tu'a lo sfofa} is wrong.
I prefer {nelci lo'e sfofa} for "liking sofas".
{tu'a sfofa} is much more ambiguous than {lo'e sfofa}.
In some context {tu'a lo sfofa} could mean "doing it on the sofa"
for example, something which {lo'e sfofa} cannot mean.
>>
Why the preference? What does it say that the othere doesn't?  The amb= iguity of {tu'a lo sfofa} is the ambiguity of {co'e}, but at least whe know= what the range is there.  But we -- I certainly and you i\by implicat= ion from the fact that you won't tell -- hae no idea what {lo'e sfofa} mean= s .  Why does it exclude doing it on the sofa -- we are never told, ev= en by implication, what you like lo'e sfofa FOR and yet things aren't like = in isolation, but for something, even if it is only a rosey glow.

<<
>Using {tu'a} does not literally change the level of abstraction, since<= BR> >everything is on the same level in Lojban.

I think {fasnu} and {dacti} are not synonymous. To that extent
at least nu-things are not at the same level as sofa-things.
>>
{mlatu} and {gerku} aren't synonymous either -- which is on the higher leve= l of abstaction?

<<
>And your case is ultimately
>talking about the properties of a sofa, not about sofas

I guess we will never agree about that.
>>
OK, your case is talking about sofas.  So why the big insistence that = it is so different from other ways of talking about sofas.  I think it= is, mind you, but this suggests that you don't. --part1_187.e2907ac.2ab6f0f8_boundary--